Devidas S/O Gangaram Mundfhale vs Malanbai W/O Devidas Mundfhale
2016 Latest Caselaw 3229 Bom

                                              1                     Cri.WP.No.368.15.odt




                                                                                  
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                          
                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.  368 OF 2015


    Devidas S/o Gangaram Mundfhale,




                                                         
    Age : 27 years, Occu : Agri,
    R/o : Golegaon, Tq. Umri,
    Dist : Nanded.                                                    Petitioner




                                             
         -VERSUS-              
    Malanbai W/o Devidas Mundfhale,
    Age : 23 years, Occu : Agri,
                              
    R/o : Golegaon, Tq. Umri,
    Dist : Nanded.                                                    Respondent


    Mr. S. C. Bhosale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
      


    Mr. A. A. Mukhedkar, Advocate of the Respondent. 
   



                                             ....

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 27/06/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated

atu/June.2016

16.02.2015 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge

Bhokar, by which Criminal Revision Application No.08 of 2011 filed

under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been

allowed.

3. Mr. Bhosale learned Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously

criticized the impugned judgment. Submission is that when the

learned Magistrate has arrived at finding on facts by concluding that

the statement of the respondent that the petitioner regularly beats

her, does not appear to be believable, the Revision application filed by

the respondent, seeking maintenance allowance under Section 125 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure could not have been allowed. The

learned Magistrate had granted maintenance only to the son of the

petitioner.

4. Mr. Bhosale strenuously submits that the power of the

Revisional Court is limited. Unless the conclusions of the learned

Magistrate are perverse, no interference is called for. Findings on

facts should not be interfered with and the grant of maintenance

atu/June.2016

allowance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One thousand) per month to

respondent No.1 is unsustainable.

5. Learned Advocate for the respondent has supported the

impugned order. He submits that the evidence on record was not

properly considered by the learned Magistrate. Despite respondent

No.1 having specifically stated that the petitioner beats her and that

is the only cause for which she is seriously apprehensive about her

cohabitation with the petitioner, this aspect was not properly gone

into by the learned Magistrate. He, therefore, submits that the

impugned judgment calls for no interference.

6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.

7. It is not disputed that respondent No.1 who is the legally

married wife of the petitioner had deposed before the learned

Magistrate that she was treated properly for a period of about one

year. Therefore, the petitioner started pressurizing her to bring

money from her parents so that he could start a shop. On that

atu/June.2016

account, she was continuously beaten by the petitioner and

physically tortured. She was forced to leave her marital home in

2009. The petitioner had denied the said allegation. However, the

facts remains that the only cause for respondent No.1 to leave her

marital home was on account of the allegation of continued

illtreatment and physical torture.

8. In my view, a legally wedded wife could not leave the company

of her husband and marital home unless there are compelling

circumstances. Learned Magistrate has erroneously concluded that

the allegations of the wife did not appear to be believable. In such

peculiar type of litigation, he could have considered the submissions

of both the sides and could have, therefore, analysed the said

evidence.

9. In the Revision Petition filed by the wife, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge has rightly realized that the conclusions of the

learned Magistrate to the extent of denial of maintenance to the wife

are erroneous. He, therefore, rightly considered the law and

atu/June.2016

concluded that the beating of the wife by the husband, which fact is

hidden within the four walls of the house, can be voiced only by the

wife after it becomes un-bearable for her. No husband, at any time,

would admit that he beats his wife.

10. In the light of the above, I do not find that the impugned

judgment of the Revisional Court can be termed as perverse or

erroneous. This petition, being devoid of merit is, therefore,

dismissed.

11. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

atu/June.2016